In the context of the operation of telecommunication systems that serve a residential institution such as a correctional confinement facility, many problems are traditionally observed relating to the abuse and/or the inability to effectively manage calling activity by users of the telecommunication system. Traditionally, controls to guard against abuse or misuse have been imposed and administered by the residential institution or by the telecommunications provider, while the called, or non-resident, party is only able to control calling activity by way of blocking or unblocking their account, or by adding or removing funds in a crude attempt to manage call volume and costs. Taking into consideration that the majority of calling activity from residential institutions is funded by the called, non-resident party, it becomes particularly desirable that the called party also be able to participate in the management of such calling activity.
In one common example, called parties, or “customers,” are frequently unaware of the exact amount of call charges they have incurred over a period of time, resulting, for example, in the sudden loss of service once the account's funds have been exhausted or in the receipt of an unexpectedly high telephone bill. Similarly, called parties frequently pay a given amount on a prepaid account with the expectation that it will last a specific period of time, only to have the funds be depleted long before the expected date, with the called party having no more financial resources available to further fund the account in the interim, thereby preventing contact with friends or loved ones. As an attempted countermeasure against this, customers can make small, frequent payments to their account so as not to exhaust all of their financial resources prematurely. This method, however, carries a significant disadvantage to the customer in that they incur additional processing fees each time a payment is made to the account. As a result of making a larger number of smaller payments, a higher percentage of each dollar spent is consumed by payment processing fees, and a smaller percentage is available for actual telecommunications services.
In another common example, customers frequently desire to place differing restrictions or limitations on specific members of the household when receiving incoming phone calls from a residential institution. For example, a mother with a son who is incarcerated may wish to place restrictions on the amount of time or money that can be spent conversing with certain members of the family, while she herself may wish to have no restrictions imposed upon her own activity. Further still, the mother may wish to completely prevent calling activity by anyone present in the household who is not authorized for such activity, regardless of whether or not they happen to answer an incoming call from the resident. Similarly, the mother may also wish to limit calling activity to the hours of the day when she herself is at home, and is able to monitor the calling activity in person. Furthermore, in some instances, the mother may also desire to receive some form of notification when calling activity has taken place by other members of the household who are authorized to receive calls on her account.
Yet another common example of the need fbr customer-administered calling controls can be found in the frequent desire by called parties to have an automatic attempt made to complete the call from the residential institution to a second or third number, such as a cell phone or a work telephone, in the event that the party is unavailable at the original called number. In this example, it may also be desirable to consolidate the call charges back to the original number called by the resident at the institution. Often, customers will attempt to obtain this level of functionality through the use of call-forwarding features from the original number to the number at which they expect to be available. This method, however, has its own disadvantages. First, the customer must be diligent in constantly enabling, disabling, and re-directing call-forwarding features. Frequently, calls are missed due to errant call-forwarding settings. The second disadvantage brought about by this method is that when call-forwarding features outside of the residential telecommunications system are utilized, the management of the residential institution, as well as the telecommunications provider, lose visibility as to exactly which terminal number actually received the call. This is particularly troublesome in the case of correctional confinement facilities, where telephone activity is highly controlled and often investigated for evidence of criminal activity.
Still another common example of the need for customer-administered calling controls can be found in the frequent desire by the calling party; or resident user, to speak only with a specific person at the called number. In this case, for instance, an incarcerated man may wish, at a particular moment, to speak only with his wife, but not with her mother who may also be in the same household and, in fact, may also be an authorized user of the telephone account.
Yet another example of the need for customer-administered calling controls arises from the creation of Parent/Child accounts allowing a group of phone numbers to be associated to a master account of which funds are shared. Multiple challenges and problems occur in this context. For example, if a daughter is linked to a parent's account and she decides to put money directly on her account is this money shared on the account or only available to the daughter? If only available to the daughter but the account has shared funds available which funds are consumed first? If shared on the whole account and the daughter wants a refund how are her funds refunded?